Chumpitazi, Bruno P.

ABSTRACT Background Patients with gastroparesis (Gp) can have a variety of symptoms. Apart from use of prokinetics, symptomatic therapies for the predominant symptom (PrS) are used. Aims (1) To classify Gp patients based on their PrS; (2) To determine differences in Gp symptoms, gastric emptying (GE), quality of life (QOL), treatments, and symptom improvement among Gp patients with different PrS. Methods Gp patients were enrolled in a multicenter registry and followed for 96‐weeks. Patients recorded their PrS and completed questionnaires assessing symptoms and QOL at enrollment and at follow up visits. Results Of 1013 Gp patients (361 diabetic, 607 idiopathic, 45 post‐fundoplication), the PrS were nausea (31%), vomiting (20%), abdominal pain (20%), bloating (9%), fullness (4%), GERD (4%), constipation (3%). Abdominal pain was more often a PrS in idiopathics, whereas vomiting was more often a PrS in diabetics. QOL scores were lower in the abdominal pain PrS group. PrS was associated with greater use of directed symptomatic treatment (antiemetic agents and gastric electrical stimulation for nausea and vomiting, prokinetic agents for vomiting and fullness, and constipation medications for constipation). Of 555 patients followed over 48 weeks, GCSI improved by ≥ 1 in 26% overall, more often in patients with initial PrS of nausea (32%) and bloating (35%) and less often for initial PrS of fullness (13%) or abdominal pain (15%). Conclusions In Gp patients, the most common PrS were nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. PrS is associated with QOL, treatments utilized, and patient outcomes. Thus, the PrS of a patient with Gp provides useful information about their present condition and future outcome.

AbstractBackgroundGastroparesis (GP) is characterized by delayed gastric emptying in the absence of mechanical obstruction.ObjectiveGenetic predisposition may play a role; however, investigation at the genome‐wide level has not been performed.MethodsWe carried out a genome‐wide association study (GWAS) meta‐analysis on (i) 478 GP patients from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium (GpCRC) compared to 9931 population‐based controls from the University of Michigan Health and Retirement Study; and (ii) 402 GP cases compared to 48,340 non‐gastroparesis controls from the Michigan Genomics Initiative. Associations for 5,811,784 high‐quality SNPs were tested on a total of 880 GP patients and 58,271 controls, using logistic mixed models adjusted for age, sex, and principal components. Gene mapping was obtained based on genomic position and expression quantitative trait loci, and a gene‐set network enrichment analysis was performed. Genetic associations with clinical data were tested in GpCRC patients. Protein expression of selected candidate genes was determined in full thickness gastric biopsies from GpCRC patients and controls.ResultsWhile no SNP associations were detected at strict significance (p ≤ 5 × 10−8), nine independent genomic loci were associated at suggestive significance (p ≤ 1 × 10−5), with the strongest signal (rs9273363, odds ratio = 1.4, p = 1 × 10−7) mapped to the human leukocyte antigen region. Computational annotation of suggestive risk loci identified 14 protein‐coding candidate genes. Gene‐set network enrichment analysis revealed pathways potentially involved in immune and motor dysregulation (pFDR ≤ 0.05). The GP risk allele rs6984536A (Peroxidasin‐Like; PXDNL) was associated with increased abdominal pain severity scores (Beta = 0.13, p = 0.03). Gastric muscularis expression of PXDNL also positively correlated with abdominal pain in GP patients (r = 0.8, p = 0.02). Dickkopf WNT Signaling Pathway Inhibitor 1 showed decreased expression in diabetic GP patients (p = 0.005 vs. controls).ConclusionWe report preliminary GWAS findings for GP, which highlight candidate genes and pathways related to immune and sensory‐motor dysregulation. Larger studies are needed to validate and expand these findings in independent datasets.

IMD0 and WLST were assessed for their clinical utility in assessing patients with symptoms of gastroparesis. Low IMD0 is associated with less gastric retention and less heartburn. Volume of water consumed during WLST, while associated with IMD0, has associations with early satiety, postprandial fullness, loss of appetite, and nausea. IMD0 and WLST appear to overlap somewhat in their assessment of gastric physiology in adults with symptoms of gastroparesis but relate to different dyspeptic symptoms.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with gastroparesis (Gp) may need enteral nutrition (EN) or exclusive parenteral nutrition (PN). Among patients with Gp, we aimed to (1) identify the frequency of EN and exclusive PN use and (2) explore characteristics of patients using EN and/or exclusive PN compared with those using oral nutrition (ON), including changes over 48 weeks.MethodsPatients with Gp underwent history and physical examination, gastric emptying scintigraphy, water load satiety testing (WLST), and questionnaires assessing gastrointestinal symptoms and quality of life (QOL). Patients were observed 48 weeks.ResultsOf 971 patients with Gp (idiopathic, 579; diabetic, 336; post–Nissen fundoplication, 51), 939 (96.7%) were using ON only, 14 (1.4%) using exclusive PN, and 18 (1.9%) using EN. Compared with patients receiving ON, patients receiving exclusive PN and/or EN were younger, had lower body mass index, and had greater symptom severity. Patients receiving exclusive PN and/or EN had lower physical QOL but not mental QOL or Gp‐related QOL scores. Patients receiving exclusive PN and/or EN ingested less water during WLST but did not have worse gastric emptying. Of those who had been receiving exclusive PN and/or EN, 50% and 25%, respectively, resumed ON at 48‐week follow‐up.ConclusionsThis study describes patients with Gp requiring exclusive PN and/or EN for nutrition support, who represent a small (3.3%) but important subset of patients with Gp. Unique clinical and physiological parameters are associated with this subset and provide insight into the use of nutrition support in Gp.